Seeing things in their past? You are full of beans!

[Subduction Zone]

I have been listening , and I am still listening , and still waiting for the answers.

For instance explain about the last two lines in the post you are replying to - that would be post 472

The answers have been given to you, but you have been refusing to listen. This won't help:

Where L is the observed length Lnaught is the length in the object's rest frame and gamma is the Lorentz factor or:

Where v is the objects velocity and c is the speed of light. If you start plugging numbers into the you will see that the value of the Lorentz factor approaches infinity as the speed of the object approaches the speed of light. That means it's length will approach zero. There you have the math that works, but as I said it probably did not help.

Now would you like to discuss how they got those equations?

EDIT: Rats, the images do not appear. But if you hit the Reply button you can see them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You could say wind doesn't experience time yet without time wind wouldn't exist. It takes time for wind to blow. The photon experiences time. It takes 25 billion years(time) for light to travel 25 billion light years. That is time, it may not change the photon but it is still time.

Sorry, but you simply do not understand time. You are using Newtonian mechanics and those do not work as one approaches light speed.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

Sorry, but you simply do not understand time. You are using Newtonian mechanics and those do not work as one approaches light speed.

Without time light doesn't exist. Sorry, but you don't understand time. You are using know nothing mechanics.
Time existed before light and it takes time for light to travel or exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If light just happened 150 million light years away, how long, how much time, before it is visible to us?

In our frame of reference it would take 150 million years for the light to get here. For the photon, no time at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Without time light doesn't exist. Sorry, but you don't understand time. You are using know nothing mechanics.
Time existed before light and it takes time for light to travel or exist.

If you want to remain ignorant that is fine with me.

Did you at least click on my link where the images did not come through to see the equations involved? Did you not see that distance, as one approaches the speed of light, goes to zero?

 

[AManCalledHorse]

The answers have been given to you, but you have been refusing to listen. This won't help:

Where L is the observed length Lnaught is the length in the object's rest frame and gamma is the Lorentz factor or:

Where v is the objects velocity and c is the speed of light. If you start plugging numbers into the you will see that the value of the Lorentz factor approaches infinity as the speed of the object approaches the speed of light. That means it's length will approach zero. There you have the math that works, but as I said it probably did not help.

Now would you like to discuss how they got those equations?

EDIT: Rats, the images do not appear. But if you hit the Reply button you can see them.

You are stuck thinking time doesn't exist at the speed of light. There is no proof/evidence of that. Its a hypothetical thought.
One question for you, thousands of years before light existed the universe was expanding. Could the universe expand without time? It did without light.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are stuck thinking time doesn't exist at the speed of light. There is no proof/evidence of that. Its a hypothetical thought.
One question for you, thousands of years before light existed the universe was expanding. Could the universe expand without time? It did without light.

Wrong again. There is extremely strong evidence for this. The first observed evidence involved muons from cosmic rays.

Here is a short article on it:

Muon Experiment in Relativity

And until you understand the basic concepts here you are hardly qualified to ask questions as a distraction. Learn first, questions later.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The answers have been given to you, but you have been refusing to listen. This won't help:

Where L is the observed length Lnaught is the length in the object's rest frame and gamma is the Lorentz factor or:

Where v is the objects velocity and c is the speed of light. If you start plugging numbers into the you will see that the value of the Lorentz factor approaches infinity as the speed of the object approaches the speed of light. That means it's length will approach zero. There you have the math that works, but as I said it probably did not help.

Now would you like to discuss how they got those equations?

EDIT: Rats, the images do not appear. But if you hit the Reply button you can see them.

If those equations produce results that imply light experiences no time or distance, then they appear to be in conflict with an equation that I know to be true. c = Light Speed = Distance/Time

 

[AManCalledHorse]

Wrong again. There is extremely strong evidence for this. The first observed evidence involved muons from cosmic rays.

Here is a short article on it:

Muon Experiment in Relativity

And until you understand the basic concepts here you are hardly qualified to ask questions as a distraction. Learn first, questions later.

A star 10 million light years away just went super nova. Would you see it instantaneously or would it take 10 million light years (time) to see it?

It isn't rocket science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If those equations produce results that imply light experiences no time or distance, then they appear to be in conflict with an equation that I know to be true. c = Light Speed = Distance/Time

You mean an equation that you believe to be true. Newtonian mechanics do not work at high velocities. Scientists knew that there were problems with Newtonian mechanics in the 1800's. Perhaps you are familiar with a man named "Einstein", he was the one that "fixed physics". Newtonian mechanics are accurate enough to get us to the Moon and back, but they are not accurate enough for GPS. If your phone has GPS, and it probably does, then you can either learn how it works or throw it away if you insist that it doesn't work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A star 10 million light years away just went super nova. Would you see it instantaneously or would it take 10 million light years (time) to see it?

It isn't rocket science.

Yes, but you still can't understand it. It would take ten million years for the light to reach me in my frame of reference. It would take no time at all in the photon's frame of reference.

Tell me, are you going to throw your cell phone away?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

thousands of years before light existed the universe was expanding.

I think you've misunderstood something if you think there was ever a time in the universe where light didn't exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you've misunderstood something if you think there was ever a time in the universe where light didn't exist.

Do you want to try? Neither one seems willing to even try to learn.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You mean an equation that you believe to be true. Newtonian mechanics do not work at high velocities. Scientists knew that there were problems with Newtonian mechanics in the 1800's. Perhaps you are familiar with a man named "Einstein", he was the one that "fixed physics". Newtonian mechanics are accurate enough to get us to the Moon and back, but they are not accurate enough for GPS. If your phone has GPS, and it probably does, then you can either learn how it works or throw it away if you insist that it doesn't work.

Still waiting for an answer on the distance issue - last line in post 472

Hello - How can the photon not experience distance and yet travel so far?

 

[AManCalledHorse]

I think you've misunderstood something if you think there was ever a time in the universe where light didn't exist.

After the Big Bang, the universe was like a hot soup of particles (i.e. protons, neutrons, and electrons). When the universe started cooling, the protons and neutrons began combining into ionized atoms of hydrogen (and eventually some helium). These ionized atoms of hydrogen and helium attracted electrons, turning them into neutral atoms - which allowed light to travel freely for the first time, since this light was no longer scattering off free electrons. The universe was no longer opaque! However, it would still be some time (perhaps up to a few hundred million years post-Big Bang!) before the first sources of light would start to form, ending the cosmic dark ages.

First Light & Reionization - Webb/NASA

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still waiting for an answer on the distance issue - last line in post 472

Hello - How can the photon not experience distance and yet travel so far?

Distance is relative.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

Yes, but you still can't understand it. It would take ten million years for the light to reach me in my frame of reference. It would take no time at all in the photon's frame of reference.

Tell me, are you going to throw your cell phone away?

A wind, water, clouds have no frame of reference but time effects them as it does light, i.e. a photon. It takes time for light to travel.
No one is saying the photon ages, we are saying it takes time for it to travel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

After the Big Bang, the universe was like a hot soup of particles (i.e. protons, neutrons, and electrons). When the universe started cooling, the protons and neutrons began combining into ionized atoms of hydrogen (and eventually some helium). These ionized atoms of hydrogen and helium attracted electrons, turning them into neutral atoms - which allowed light to travel freely for the first time, since this light was no longer scattering off free electrons. The universe was no longer opaque! However, it would still be some time (perhaps up to a few hundred million years post-Big Bang!) before the first sources of light would start to form, ending the cosmic dark ages.

First Light & Reionization - Webb/NASA

That is rather poorly worded. Since most hydrogen is just a proton and a neutron ionized hydrogen is still just a proton.

But at any rate, so what? It has nothing to do with relativity as worded.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A wind, water, clouds have no frame of reference but time effects them as it does light, i.e. a photon. It takes time for light to travel.
No one is saying the photon ages, we are saying it takes time for it to travel.

Wrong, one can have a frame of reference for anything, as long as it is well defined.

Perhaps we should work on Newtonian frames of reference first and then we can work on relativistic ones.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

That is rather poorly worded. Since most hydrogen is just a proton and a neutron ionized hydrogen is still just a proton.

But at any rate, so what? It has nothing to do with relativity as worded.

Do you expect me to take your misguided opinion over NASA?
Sorry that isn't going to happen.